In addition to horrific disregard for the value of natural ecosystems and natural beauty, this comment contains significant misunderstandings: > Species extinc

In addition to horrific disregard for the value of natural ecosystems and natural beauty, this comment contains significant misunderstandings: > Species extinction is nothing new, that literally is the process of evolution No. If you want a one sentence definition of evolution then it is change in gene frequencies within a population over time due to natural selection. You'd also want to point to the processes of mutation, recombination, chromosome-level rearrangements, and speciation. You are confusing standard mechanisms of evolution with species selection, which is occasionally put forward as an auxiliary mechanism of evolution but which orthodoxy largely rejects and which no-one believes is a dominant mechanism of evolution. If you want to learn more about this then read Dawkins' early books from the Selfish Gene onwards. > If we don't want a species to go extinct our primary concern should be how it effects human well-being. This sentence, and its paragraph, are incoherent. It appears that what you're trying to say is: "We should decide whether species go extinct according to whether they benefit humans". Hopefully such a repulsive argument needs no counter here. > This idea that nature is something beautiful and lovely apart from these evil humans who live in it is, frankly, absurd. Nature is harsh, brutal and violent. Yes, the natural world is harsh, brutal and violent. Perhaps you could explain how you get from that observation to the conclusion that it lacks beauty and is not worth preserving for its own sake.